Mar 1, 2017 | Blog, News
John Hickenlooper, who is “getting close” to concluding that legalization is better than prohibition, says he has a duty to resist federal interference.
Two years ago today, during his appearance at the 2015 Conservative Political Action Conference, Donald Trump said states should be free to legalize marijuana, but he also said, “I think it’s bad, and I feel strongly about it.” He added, “They’ve got a lot of problems going on right now in Colorado, some big problems.” Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, who opposed legalization in 2012, disagrees with Trump’s impression of the consequences. The president, whose press secretary last week predicted “greater enforcement” of the federal ban on marijuana in the eight states that have legalized the drug for recreational use, may be interested in what Hickenlooper had to say in an interview with Chuck Todd on Meet the Press yesterday:
Todd: If this were put on a ballot today, I know you opposed it before, but if it were put on a ballot today, would you now support it?
Hickenlooper: Well, I’m getting close. I mean, I don’t think I’m quite there yet, but we have made a lot of progress. We didn’t see a spike in teenage use. If anything, it’s come down in the last year. And we’re getting anecdotal reports of less drug dealers. I mean, if you get rid of that black market, you’ve got tax revenues to deal with, the addictions, and some of the unintended consequences of legalized marijuana, maybe this system is better than what was admittedly a pretty bad system to begin with.
Hickenlooper’s views on legalization have been evolving since 2014 based on what has actually happened in Colorado, which suggests the “big problems” that Trump perceived in 2015 may have been exaggerated by the prohibitionists who were feeding him information. Even if legalization were a disaster in Colorado, of course, that would not mean the federal government should try to stop it.
The federalist approach Trump has said he favors allows a process of trial and error from which other states can learn.
According to Hickenlooper, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, prior to his confirmation, told Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) that marijuana enforcement “wasn’t worth rising to the top and becoming a priority.” That assurance is consistent with Sessions’ vague comments on the subject during a confirmation hearing last month but seems to be at odds with White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer’s statement last week.
If Sessions does try to shut down state-licensed marijuana businesses in Colorado, it sounds like Hickenlooper is ready for a fight. “Our voters passed [legalization] 55-45,” he told Todd. “It’s in our constitution. I took a solemn oath to support our constitution….The states have a sovereignty just like the Indian tribes have a sovereignty, and just like the federal government does.”
Asked if he questions whether “it’s clear that the federal government could stop you,” Hickenlooper replied, “Exactly. I don’t think it is.”
Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason magazine and a nationally syndicated columnist.
Mar 1, 2017 | Blog, Legalization, News
Higher education takes on new meaning in Pueblo County, Colorado.
In February, local officials announced that a first-of-its-kind scholarship program will create $475,000 in funding to help send the county’s graduating high school seniors to local colleges.
A majority of the fund – about $425,000 – came from taxing legal marijuana.
“A couple years ago, these are dollars that would have been going to the black market, drug cartels,” Pueblo County commissioner Sal Pace told KKTV in an interview. “Now money that’s used to fund drug cartels is now being used to fund college scholarships.”
Marijuana has been legal for recreational use in Colorado since 2012. Pueblo County, located about an hour’s drive south of resort town Colorado Springs, began collecting a 2% excise tax on all weed grown there in 2016. The tax will increase 1% annually until 2021.
Students who live in Pueblo County and graduate from high school this spring automatically qualify for a chunk of the fund. County officials expect a $1,000 payout for every applicant, which they can put toward tuition at Pueblo Community College or Colorado State University-Pueblo (which gets about 300 and 400 incoming freshmen from the county every year).
While $1,000 would not stretch far at a private university, in-state tuition costs about $3,000 a year at PCC and up to $6,000 annually at CSU-Pueblo, depending on the number of credit hours taken. The Pueblo County Scholarship could put a substantial dent in student debt.
The scholarship fund is expected to grow as the rate of taxation increases. Pace told The Huffington Post that only half of the marijuana cultivators licensed to grow were operational last year, and the county expects to generate extra revenue as more farms come online in 2017.
Colorado isn’t the only state to put legal marijuana revenues to good use.
In California, which legalized recreational marijuana in 2016 but won’t sell it in stores until 2018, residents will pay a 15% tax on sales of the drug, generating up to $1 billion in new tax revenue annually. Ten million dollars (increasing annually for five years until it reaches $50 million) will help support communities disproportionately harmed by the war on drugs.
Feb 28, 2017 | Blog, News
During today’s White House briefing, Press Secretary Sean Spicer was asked about the Trump administration’s position on marijuana enforcement. This issue has left marijuana advocates, business owners, investors, patients, and consumers wondering what the president’s true intentions are. As 28 states and DC have legalized medical marijuana and eight states and DC have legalized recreational marijuana, the administration’s position is one that will affect many Americans.
Spicer’s response drew a distinction between medical and recreational marijuana. He answered the initial question by stating,
“there are two distinct issues here: medical marijuana and recreational marijuana. I think medical marijuana, I’ve said before, the president understands the pain and suffering that many people go through who are facing, especially terminal diseases, and the comfort that some of these drugs, including medical marijuana can bring to them. And that’s one that Congress, through a rider in 2011…I think put in appropriations bill saying the Department of Justice wouldn’t be funded to go after those folks. There’s a big difference between that and recreational marijuana. And when you see something like the opioid addiction crisis blossoming in so many states around this country, the last thing we want to be doing is encouraging people—there is still a federal law that we need to abide by when it comes to medical—in terms of recreational marijuana and other drugs of that nature. There’s a big difference between medical marijuana which states—in the states where that’s allowed in accordance with the appropriations rider have set forth a process to administer and regulate that usage versus recreational marijuana and that’s a very, very different subject.”
There is a lot to break apart here, and while the issue of marijuana policy is clearly new to the press secretary and to the Trump administration, it is important to break a bit of this down to a few points for the White House to consider.
Medical marijuana and recreational marijuana are equally illegal under federal law.
Although Mr. Spicer is correct that an appropriations rider (formally, the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment) prevents the Justice Department from spending money to crack down on medical marijuana in states that have approved reforms, that does nothing to address the illegality of the substance. In short, all the amendment says is that DOJ is prevented from enforcing federal law against medical marijuana growers, distributors, and buyers—who are still breaking the law. The Controlled Substances Act makes marijuana illegal in all cases—regardless of the purpose of its use. The Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment does not change that.
The suggestion that medical marijuana states have “set forth a process to administer and regulate” but recreational states have not is fundamentally false.
Recreational states that are currently up and running—Colorado, Washington, Oregon and Alaska—have been implementing significant and stringent administrative and regulatory systems around those policies. The only jurisdiction that has not done so—the District of Columbia—was prevented from doing it by one of President Trump’s supporters in the House, Rep. Andy Harris of Maryland. The District government intended to construct a recreational system that looked much like their medical system in terms of regulatory rigor. In fact, arguments can be made that recreational marijuana regulatory systems in the states that have come online (and in the states that are soon to come online) are more robust than a few of the states that have approved medical marijuana reforms. This distinction is important when disseminating information to the public—one of the roles Mr. Spicer prominently plays—because it reinforces the myth that every medical marijuana system in the U.S. is a tightly run ship and that recreational marijuana systems are free-wheeling, fly-by-night operations. I would encourage Mr. Spicer and other members of the Trump administration to meet with regulators from the Marijuana Enforcement Division in Colorado, the State Liquor and Cannabis Board in Washington, the Liquor Control Commission in Oregon and the Marijuana Control Board in Alaska to understand more clearly what these states are doing.
If President Trump believes in the medical value of cannabis, he can enact meaningful change.
There are many areas where presidential action and/or presidential leadership can go a long way in reforming the nation’s medical marijuana policy. Mr. Spicer was clear that the White House was supportive of medical marijuana and sees it as distinct from recreational marijuana. If so, the White House has a bit of a to-do list. President Trump can:
- Support reform proposals in Congress centered on medical marijuana such as the CARERS Act and others.
- Codify the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment (now the Rohrabacher-Blumenauer legislation) that Mr. Spicer referenced to make it permanent law and not contingent on the continuing resolutions that fund our government or the standard appropriations process—if Congress can ever find a way to return to that.
- Reschedule cannabis or deschedule it with specific restrictions with regard to medical use.
- Deschedule non-intoxicating cannabidiol or CBD.
- Call for increased federal funding at NIH and other agencies to study the medical efficacy of marijuana.
- Appoint a drug czar and heads of the DEA and FDA who have similar beliefs to the president on this issue.
- Lift banking and tax restrictions for medical marijuana firms in ways that lower overhead costs for producers that are ultimately passed on to sick patients.
There is no shortage of ways in which a medical marijuana reform-oriented president can advance those ideas. If the White House is serious about it, President Trump can show the nation that he is more willing to address such issues and public needs than any of his predecessors.
Opioid use and marijuana use are not the same thing.
Mr. Spicer seemed to equate recreational marijuana use with the use of opioids and other drugs. People are dying every day across the United States because of opioids. Heroin is being cut with other, more deadly drugs like Fentanyl and causing a serious overdose crisis in the U.S. Those results are not happening with legal marijuana. Yes, legal marijuana has led to some public health issues and state regulatory systems have tried to respond to those challenges. Those public health issues are minor compared to what is happening with opioids in the states. Mr. Spicer should ask himself if he really believes heroin is as big a threat to Americans as a state-legal and regulated marijuana system. If he believes that answer is “yes,” then his equating the two is logical. If he believes the answer is “no,” he should abandon dangerous rhetoric that simultaneously hyperbolizes marijuana and delegitimizes the opioid crisis. Moreover, Mr. Spicer should read some of the research that suggests marijuana could be used as a substitute for opioids, helping opioid users distance themselves from that drug. That research isn’t a rumor in the marijuana industry; it is medical research coming from the University of Colorado, the University of Michigan, and elsewhere.
Recognize that marijuana legalization does not introduce marijuana to communities.
Recreational marijuana use happens in every state in the U.S. every day by hundreds of thousands of individuals. That includes states with and without recreational legalization. In states that have legalized, the regulatory systems ensure that the product is safer than black market product and that consumers know what they are getting in terms of potency and with regard to the presence of adulterants like mold or pesticides. Moreover, in state-legal systems, officials can use tax revenue to fund information, prevention, public health, and public safety campaigns that help deal with problems that can arise from marijuana use. In states without legal systems, those problems still arise, but states collect zero tax revenue from sales.
The White House can host a summit to address marijuana policy.
Mr. Spicer’s comments from the podium today showed some hesitation and some misunderstandings within the White House on marijuana policy. That same confusion exists among some in the public, as well. That is not a criticism of the White House; it is a reflection of the complex and ever-changing reality of marijuana policy in this country. The White House can show leadership and encourage a better-informed public and policy making community by convening the top experts on cannabis, public health, public safety, drug policy, and medicine to discuss the issue. The president has effectively brought together CEOs, labor leaders, minority communities, and other groups to discuss relevant issues— he can do the same on this issue.
Think about public opinion on marijuana.
The president has often spoken about returning the power to the people. Returning power to the people can take many forms. One is the decentralization of power to the states (closer governmental representatives of the public). Another is for the White House to be responsive to public opinion. For the former, the president can let states do what they like on marijuana policy and have the federal government get out of the way—a policy that should resonate well if the president is truly a small government conservative. For the latter, the answer is not only clear but was reflected by polling results released on the same day Mr. Spicer discussed marijuana from the podium. Quinnipiac University released a poll showing that 59 percent of Americans support recreational marijuana legalization and 71 percent of Americans want the federal government to get out of the way of states when it comes to marijuana policy. And you can bet a lot of that support comes from states President Trump won in 2016. The president may not believe that you can ‘Make America Great Again’ by legalizing marijuana, but if he wants states and citizens to be more in control of public policy, he should consider himself the last person who should try to get in the way.
To sum up, Mr. Spicer was bold in addressing a marijuana reform question head on and refusing to punt on it. His predecessors have not been so brave. He should continue to discuss this issue that matters to many Americans, and in the meantime, take today as an opportunity to push the White House to become better informed on the issue and think hard about what the best policy path forward could be.
Original Article
More interesting stuff
https://www.brookings.edu/topic/marijuana-policy/
Feb 28, 2017 | Blog, News
In a Hill op-ed, NORML refutes claims that cannabis contributes to increased opioid consumption, uses facts and data to highlight the inverse correlation between opioid abuse and medical marijuana.
Washington, DC: On Thursday, White House Press Secretary lied to the American public when he claimed “I think that when you see something like the opioid addiction crisis blossoming in so many states around this country, the last thing we should be doing is encouraging people (by regulating the adult use of marijuana)” during his daily press conference.
Paul Armentano, Deputy Director for NORML, published a response in The Hill newspaper systematically refuting this claim.
“Yet even a cursory look at the available evidence finds Spicer’s concerns to be misplaced and his allegations to be dead wrong.
In reality, permitting legal access to cannabis is consistently associated with reduced rates of opioid use, abuse, and mortality.”
Armentano cites several relevant peer-reviewed studies from the US, Canada, and Israel to bolster his arguments.
He concludes: “Proponents of marijuana prohibition have long alleged that experimentation with pot acts as a ‘gateway’ to the use and eventual abuse of other illicit substances. But the evidence does not support this claim. In reality, permitting marijuana sales to be regulated by licensed, state-authorized distributors rather than by criminal entrepreneurs and pushers of various other illicit drugs results in fewer, not more, Americans abusing other, potentially more dangerous substances.”
You can read the piece by clicking here.
NORML’s mission is to move public opinion sufficiently to legalize the responsible use of marijuana by adults, and to serve as an advocate for consumers to assure they have access to high quality marijuana that is safe, convenient and affordable.
NORML and the NORML Foundation:
1100 H Street NW, Suite 830, Washington DC, 20005
Tel: (202) 483-5500 • Fax: (202) 483-0057 • Email: norml@norml.org
Jan 16, 2017 | News
http://m.metrotimes.com/detroit/higher-ground-six-things-to-consider/Content?oid=2478860#
Dec 12, 2016 | Blog, Michigan Medical Marijuana Act, Michigan Medical Marijuana Criminal Defense, News
When Deborah Young of Ferndale sent her $60 fee to Lansing this year to register as a medical-marijuana user, she assumed the state would use her money to review her paperwork and print her ID card.
The fees are “for the operation and oversight of the Michigan medical marihuana program,” says state law — spelling marijuana with an “h,” the old-fashioned way as in federal law.
Last month, though, Young said she and other card holders were shocked to learn that Michigan’s Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs — LARA — had built up so much in fees that it gave $1.2 million to 18 county sheriffs, including those in Wayne, Oakland and Macomb counties. The grants are intended via legislative approval to be used by sheriffs for training and enforcement of Michigan’s medical marijuana act.
“They’re raiding the same people who paid those fees,” said Young, 58, who has glaucoma, a serious eye disease approved for medical-marijuana treatment in Michigan.
“We couldn’t believe it,” said Young. Ferndale residents learned not only that the Oakland County Sheriff received fee revenue from the ID cards but that their own city’s police department was set to get a share of it for use in medical-marijuana investigations.
The Oakland County Sheriff’s Office received $323,725 this year from LARA, according to a county memo sent to cities getting the grant offers. According to the memo, the county sheriff plans to spend $98,000 on 28 raid-style bulletproof vests, $80,000 on a Chevrolet van, pickup and trailer to transport seized marijuana plants; $10,000 to train investigators, and $134,000 for overtime pay to medical-marijuana investigators. Much of the overtime pay is being offered to 15 communities in Oakland County that lend officers to OAKNET — the Oakland County Narcotics Enforcement Team.
The Ferndale City Council rubber-stamped the grant without discussion in mid-July. Rochester and Royal Oak city councils also voted last month to accept grant money. Ferndale’s share of $5,582 was to pay overtime for officers in countywide medical-marijuana raids, according to the county memo.
When Young and other residents began calling the city to complain, the council put the grant back on its agenda. And it prompted Young to stand before the council members to demand that they rescind their decision.
“Why would we need a medical-marijuana oversight grant in Ferndale? Why would we even be a part of something to harass sick people?” she told council members.
Her questions also prompted bigger ones: Whether medical-marijuana users are primarily law-abiding Michiganders who merely seek a respite from pain and other conditions approved for medical-marijuana treatment; or whether they’re mainly seeking a sensory high, with the aid of complicit doctors willing to sign forms, and of drug dealers bent on making big profits while dodging federal drug laws.
Oakland County Sheriff Michael Bouchard said he sees dispensary operators as a serious threat to society.
“These grants aren’t to prosecute someone who’s not breaking the law,” Bouchard said. Oakland County’s memo offering grants to local police departments, provided to 15 city councils and township boards, said that medical marijuana “is being smuggled, mailed and transported into Oakland County from other states on a regular basis.” Michigan’s medical marijuana act, a vague law passed by voters in 2008, is an invitation to drug dealing, profiteering and the involvement of organized crime, Bouchard said.
Bouchard is unabashed about his vigorous campaign to wipe out dispensaries in Oakland County, citing a state Supreme Court ruling in 2011, which Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette has said means that most dispensaries were illegal in Michigan. Law enforcement officials in some counties, including Wayne, have tolerated the spread of dispensaries, but Bouchard said he is adamantly opposed to such leniency.
Oakland County investigators recently learned that two workers at a chain of four dispensaries, operating in Wayne and Oakland counties, were shot by a rival group, he said.
“One individual was murdered. The other was shot several times, but survived,” Bouchard said, adding: “I don’t care what some other counties are doing. The law says these types of facilities are illegal (and) they put law-abiding citizens at risk.”
The practice of turning medical-marijuana users’ fees against them by police agencies is not new in Michigan, although this year’s escalation of grants was shocking, said Rick Thompson, editor of the online Compassion Chronicles, a blog for medical-marijuana patients.
“This started out as a small, hidden part of the state’s budget in fiscal year 2014,” Thompson said. As the medical-marijuana funds swelled from cranking out ID cards, the Legislature began earmarking grant money for county sheriffs, Thompson said.
“The language said it would be for education about and enforcement of Michigan’s medical marijuana act, but you can see what that turned into,” he said. In the first year, four counties spent $116,000, state records show.
This year, the grant money grew tenfold, said State Representative Jeff Irwin, D-Ann Arbor. The Macomb County Sheriff is allowed up to $254,125, and the Wayne County Sheriff got $473,256, Irwin said.
The grants could expand dramatically again next year because LARA now has a whopping $31 million in its medical-marijuana fund, mainly from fees paid for ID cards by nearly 200,000 Michiganders, who were either approved to use medical marijuana or approved to be caregivers and provide medical marijuana to others.
The fee revenue this year flows in at nearly $9 million a year, $3 million more than the cost to administer the program, Irwin said.
Funneling fresh windfalls to law enforcement could mean more raids of dispensaries, home growing operations and other medical-marijuana sites, Irwin said.
Michigan is one of only two states that allows medical marijuana but doesn’t allow dispensaries, said Karen O’Keefe, a lawyer who is director of state policies for the Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit Marijuana Policy Project.
“The big problem in Michigan is that the Legislature just has not updated the law” to allow dispensaries, O’Keefe said.
“It just does not make sense that you tell people, your only legal option is to plant a seed and wait four to five months” for it to grow the plant, said O’Keefe, in Grosse Pointe Woods last week to visit her parents.
Law-enforcement leaders have lobbied to block bills in Lansing that would’ve allowed and regulated dispensaries. This fall’s lame-duck session of the state Legislature could change that, said State Sen. Rick Jones, R-Grand Ledge.
“Right now, we have a package of bills that would do that, and in a way that would be acceptable to police, acceptable to the cities and townships, and acceptable I think to most of the patients,” said Jones, a former sheriff of Eaton County and chair of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee.
“The only people who oppose this are the ones who are profiting greatly” by hiding criminal enterprises behind the cover of Michigan’s medical marijuana law, he said. In the meantime, police must keep the pressure on those who’ve turned dispensaries into dens of illegal drug dealing, he said.
At the Ferndale City Council meeting late last month, another speaker who opposed accepting the county’s grant was former Ferndale mayor Craig Covey, a strong supporter of fully legalized marijuana. Covey is running in November against Bouchard for Oakland County Sheriff.
“So the money that’s coming back to Ferndale (as a grant to police) is coming from people with glaucoma, people with pain conditions, people who are legal patients using medical marijuana, and it’s being used to shut down compassion clubs and dispensaries,” Covey told the city council.
Standing nearby, Ferndale police Chief Timothy Collins already was counting on having an extra $5,000 in his budget.
“This is simply a vehicle for the city to be reimbursed for some of our overtime. Royal Oak accepted it two weeks ago,” Collins told the city council.
After a short debate, the council voted 3-1 to rescind its previous vote. The grant had been rejected. “Thank you, Ferndale!” shouted Young, as she and others applauded. But moments earlier, the audience heard Councilman Dan Martin’s dire assessment of the vote: “I understand that this is a symbolic stance — the county’s going to do what it’s going to do.”
Bill Laitner , Detroit Free Press 10:39 p.m. EDT August 6, 2016
